"This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Warner Brothers Entertainment claiming that this material is infringing: Eatin' On The Cuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDRxe9NZWwg"

These cartoon clips I post do nothing but promote Warner Bros. (and other cartoons). They don't compete with Warners. People who discover the cartoons on my and other fan sites will want torun out and buy high rez copies of them on DVD.

Warner Bros. even advertises on my site to sell Bugs Bunny and Looney Tunes related merchandise!

My blog and the blogs I link to are the best advertisements for old cartoons in the world.

While Warner Bros. stops promoting their own great properties by taking the cartoons off of the TV networks, the only way left for young fans to discover these classsic films is through Youtube and our fan blogs.

My blog is historical and educational content so is also covered by "fair use" protection.

I urge you to do the smart and right thing by restoring the low rez clips on Youtube and giving Warners back its free publicity and letting the world know more about their great historical legacy.

Do not bury Bugs Bunny and his pals.John KricfalusiCreator of Ren and Stimpy

Blog-Hecklers...Supreme and friends, WAKE UP!!You can click their link copyright@youtube.com and give 'em a piece of your mind too. Does anybody have a good link directly to a Warner Bros. site that you can go heckle?

148 comments:

max ward
said...

You provide Warner Bros. with the best commentary for their DVDs and then they get mad at you for giving them free publicity. If it wasn't for you alot of people would only see Late Chuck Jones and Friz Freleng cartoons. The hell with em'

But then again, if they allow you, wouldn't they have to allow everyone? A better idea would be to expand your blog to an official area, much like Kevin Smith's blog.

On the flipside, youtube is the future, and WB and really all other companies [Fox is also taking down the clips] should think of a way to make money off of it rather than fight against it. They'll be seen as the future. Get hugs and chocolate. History books will praise thier forward thinking.

It's true, after I saw Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs, Tin Pan Alley Cats, and Russian Rhapsody on YouTube, I really wish Warner Bros. would release good quality copies on DVD, and I would pay good money for that too.

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Warner Brothers Entertainment claiming that this material is infringing

You notice it says that the file is infringing but it doesn't say exactly what it's infringing on. It doesn't mention any copyright laws (Section 32-A of blah blah blah and like that). That note must mean that we're infringing on WB's diabolical scheme to supress the Looney Tunes into obscurity. >:P

Hey, Warner Bros. I have a blogpost dedicated entirely to Daffy Duck. Now people will know who he is. OOOOOOOOH! I'm baaaaaaaad. ;)

Those message baords have already shut down apparently, as the note at the top of the page reads. Let's write to Warner Bros. via e-mail and regular mail, let them know that there is a whole community of people that don't appreicate how they handle their cartoon catalog. I sense a Warner Bros. boycott.

Unbelievable! Warners has shot itself in the foot once again! We have to fight this!

Blogs linking to youtube allowed people to see the cartoons under discussion, or at least to see the relevant parts in low-res. It was a great opportunity to settle long-standing disputes about who was better and why and a good way to call attention to especially well-done animation. Why should Warners feel threatened by this? They should encourage it!

I'm actually surprised they lasted this long. As soon as you started posting them, I thought, "Surely WB is going to pull these." After a while, I figured there had to be a reason they hadn't.

I don't disagree with them being within fair use or with them being excellent advertising. From reading your posts and watching the clips, I've developed a far deeper appreciation for the classic animation styles. Your blog has done more to get me interested in buying these classics than any advertising could have.

It's a shame that big media hasn't gotten it through their heads that the Internet is rapidly becoming like free radio for video. Short clips, discussions on them, etc., really build an interest in the material that might not otherwise be there.

Wow that's incredible...the whole reason I bought the Golden Looney Tunes DVD Collection was because of blogs like this that reminding me how cool all those old cartoons were that I haven't been able to see on Television for years(or in some cases NEVER)! What a bunch of short-sited corporate A holes!

Just to play devil's advocate, it should be mentioned that copyright protection is really, really fragile. If they don't actively pursue random uses of their characters here and there, they will actually lose the right to protect themselves from real infringement elsewhere. That said, they should probably have contacted you directly, offered you a free license, and maybe even paid you to promote their work.

Hey John, I heard about the WB Empire shuttin' down the videos and visited your site for the first time. I for one would love to see these gems restored on DVD- thank YOU for piqueing my interest. When I was younger, these were the only cartoons I would watch, everything else was crap!

Have some reverence for these cultural icons. (At least Disney’s does that with those classic tin collections) You are just the current generational guardians of this art, you did nothing to create it, but you have a responsibility to maintain it. By burying a "golden" cartoon (marketer speak for- dinosaur relic) they can force the new "loonatic" styled crap on us easier; we won't gag on the crap filled spoon. I hate the current over use of the word "retro" how about timeless? Genius?

First of all John, Warner Bros. advertises with Google, not specifically you. So it isn't quite accurate to act like they've given you an endorsement by advertising on your site. Google just finds that your site says "Bugs Bunny" and stuff like that, then shows an ad based on that text.

I however, do agree with you that your site is doing nothing but promoting them. The problem is, can't anyone link to YouTube videos? Maybe not everyone who is using these videos on their sites is using them for educational purposes, and you can't control that and that's why they're mad. That could be why your "educational purposes" reasoning might not be valid when you're posting the videos on a site intended to share them. If they were only available in the context of your site, maybe they would see things differently.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think they are overreacting to some crappy quality clips online and acting unfairly. I'm just trying to explain possibly why they are taking action on this.

^This guy complained about bad service he got from Orbitz, and Orbtitz got flooded with so many complaints on belalf of him, and boycotts that they gave him a full refund! Maddox doesn't hold as much sway as John K, so we CAN change this! Everyone just needs to DO it.

Maybe if these clips somehow got leaked to some of the other sites that host videos they would continue to be posted. Warner Bros. can't stop everybody. I know that if somehow somebody sent the clips to g@gotdetroit.com that we would put those videos up on our site.

And once they're out there they spread fast.

Not that anyone would necessarily puposefully infringe on anything by actually sending these clips to g@gotdetroit.com. I'm just saying they could.

The people who run Warner Brothers hates there fans AND there cartoons and characters...there's no greater proof of this than what they have proceeded to to with them over the years sense Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones, and Tex Avery have been out of control of these said characters. They've given us Space Jam, Micheal Jordan incorporated T-shirts, Tiny Toons, some craptastic show called Loonatics, and now THIS...

Screw Warner Brothers...if they even gave a damn about those characters OR there fans they would have let great cartoonist like John K here bring them back to the big screen for us YEARS ago!

what do you expect from a company that won't air classics, but recently redesigned bugs and his crew as a bunch of superheros, that fired bruce timm, wouldn't properly promote iron giant, and then closed down the studio that made it? "Damn WB you're good!" As fer youtube, if this stuff is really fair use, let's just upload it to a Different video host, there are plenty. peace

Regardless of your feelings on copyright LAW...the LAMEST argumenthas always been "When people see my illegal posting of this copyrighted material, they will run out and buy their opwn legal copy." Bullshit. And by the way...it is not hte "best advertisement" ever. A one hit wonder writer who created an overrated cartoon 15 years ago...one that most people don't care about anymore, and someone who NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT (sorry, you are a complete unknown) is not the "best advertisement" these cartoons can get.

That was the greatest thing I've heard all day. You promote the hell out of Warner Bros and teach people about animation (such as myself). Youtube has given me shit before about my own cartoons once, talking about copyright infringement. There is a number you can call to it's:Heather GilletteYouTube, Inc.71 E. Third AveSan Mateo, CA 94401

Tel: 650.343.2960Call her and bitch. Tell her that John is only putting up like 30 sec clips of old Looney Tunes "TEACHING" online animation. She might be able to put this back up, she did it for me.......

"Tel: 650.343.2960Call her and bitch. Tell her that John is only putting up like 30 sec clips of old Looney Tunes "TEACHING" online animation. She might be able to put this back up, she did it for me......."

Hi. This is the same "anonymous" from above, the one who was hating all over John K. I take back everything I said. You see, I'm just a bitter 'n jealous failed cartoonist that still lives at home with his disappointed unwashed aged parents, and loves having sex with stray dogs. Please forgive me for my stupidity, and let me say that I'm pissing myself in anticipation over the new Ren & Stimpy DVD later this month. I'm buying TWO!

Sorry to hear about Warner Bro's being stuck up pricks and turning down free advertising for them.

I have an off-topic question... a long time ago, in the middle of some late night haze, I saw a "yogi the bear" spoof on adult swim. The animation really reminded me of your style and humor, but I was too out of it (and laughing too much) to catch the credits. This was probably about 4 years ago or so. Was this cartoon yours, and if so, is it available to download anywhere? I'd love to see it again. Thanks.

WOW.I can't belive that this would be the legal stance they would take, out of all the possabilities. I have linked this story in my blog as well in hopes to gain this story some more momentum.While I can momentarily see their stance as a leagal-issue, I think the greater one here is the pervassiveness of the need to promote art in all it's previous incarnations for the benefit future generations.

Not alot of 12 year olds are going to buy a Classic Bugs DVD set on pure faith or impulse, but I think they would be more inclined to shell out their paper-route money if they had a taste of what is waiting for them, and what the origins of animated comedy are.

I am writing to voice my displeasure at the recent removal of several classic animation clips from the Youtube web service. I believe they were posted by a "ThadK".

They were being used by John Krcifalusi, creator of Ren an Stimpy in a series of educational posts about the history and technique of Warner's animation. He is presenting us with an in-depth education, based upon his detailed, lifelong study of these films, and he is doing so at no charge. He is promoting awareness and appreciation for Warner's entire catalog of classic cartoon films, and thereby preserving and extending their economic value to Warner's and its shareholders.

I feel there must be some mistake if you react automatically to remove any instance of copyrighted material from public view... Surely there must be some instance, such as this one, where public viewing actually benefits everybody?

The owner of the copyright in a cartoon has the right to decide when and where it gets used. If you're posting clips of cartoons you don't own, you're doing it illegally. Period.

Now, instead of having a hissy fit that you can't do whatever you want with something YOU DON'T OWN, why not lobby for Warner Bros. to release the cartoons that haven't been released? And if the cartoons you're talking about have already been released, then why not just post a link to a site where "fans" can buy a legitimate copy?

While I don't think your use of clips is an infringement of any copyright laws, the YouTube.com terms and conditions make clear and rather strict claims about what constitutes a violation. In this case, because you don't "own" the clip you posted, it could easily be removed if a single person complains.

This is less of a problem with YouTube and more of a problem with the way that major corporations intimidate new content services for displaying clips of their content for the sake of education and journalism.

YouTube, MySpace, Xanga, WordPress, etc. should be viewed as advertising opportunities for the companies whose content is supposedly being infringed upon. If anything, the displaying of a media clip should be looked at as free-advertisement or even a form of barder for the effort the person presenting the clip went through preparing the material for public display.

YouTube should exercise a little more courage, but Warner should be a little bit less ridiculous with the handling of their classic cartoons.

I love those post of Bugs Bunny from "The Wild Hare" and "Tortoise Wins By A Hare". They sure don't draw Bugs Bunny like that any more. I still think about how cool it would be if WB hired you to direct a Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck cartoon for the theater. I noticed that the Duck from the Ren & Stimpy cartoon "Altruists" looks a lot like Daffy. I'm sure thats how Daffy would look if you directed a Daffy Duck cartoon. I still say that Tex Avery & Bob Clampett made the BEST Bugs Bunny cartoons!

"Now, instead of having a hissy fit that you can't do whatever you want with something YOU DON'T OWN, why not lobby for Warner Bros. to release the cartoons that haven't been released? And if the cartoons you're talking about have already been released, then why not just post a link to a site where "fans" can buy a legitimate copy?"

...Because John is trying to high light examples of great animation and great direction with in cartoons, not so much the cartoons them selves. Anyhow, hissy fit or not you should post your name if you want to be taken seriously...

Now, instead of having a hissy fit that you blah blah blah...Do you think you could shut the fuck up long enough to figure out where your own interests lie? Or, is your interest simply in being a pain in the ass for NO reason?

The WB hasn't made a sane descion in years regarding the LT chacaters. They take the Looney Tunes off TV just because "Looney Tunes Back in Action" failed at the box office, I know, I don't get the connection either.

>>Maybe not everyone who is using these videos on their sites is using them for educational purposes, and you can't control that and that's why they're mad.<<

John just shows little clips as examples to highlight his lesson for the day. This blog is an art forum and its purpose is to discuss art and share ideas with each other. It should not be regulated by a bunch of lawyer fucks.

since all your post on WB cartoons and other blogs about looney tunes i've been crazyer about them. i even bought the golden collection 1 and 2 and now i'm wainting to by the numeber 3 'couse it haven't come out for sell yet here in argentinaJohn K is sharing his joy for the looney tunes and all the ARTIST from that time and he even coments on ther oficial dvd so no one should be in more title to put this clips than him!i think WB should even ask him to direct new looney tunes cartoons 'couse the ones they are doing now are shit with all that crappy super hero action. no one could do it better than john in this days!

I wonder if YouTube is getting legal hassles about the things that have been published on the site. It seems that they are going a little overboard about blocking material.

You do have an argument re: "fair use" - you are a "teacher using a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson" (direct quote from the U.S. Copyright Law). You are doing these lessons in conjunction with a non-profit institution - the ASIFA.

In a classroom setting, you are allowed to broadcast 3 minutes or 10% of the broadcast, whichever is less. If you are only broadcasting snippets of the material (approx 30-45 seconds) to illustrate your lesson, I can't see the problem. BUT - I think if you are hosting snippets of a broadcast, you still need permission from the owners (WB) to do so.

I think your best bet is to consult an attorney, or if ted (who I believe is an attorney) is reading, maybe he can provide some insight on how you can use the clips.

I got the same letter a few weeks ago. All the Tex Avery and Tom and Jerry MGM shorts I posted were removed. The only thing still up is 'Russian Rhapsody'. It's a damn shame! I'm pretty sure the Tex Avery shorts aren't even available in the US on DVD. Not to mention that all the VHS stuff is long out of print.

>>Hello, I'm writing to complain about about the John Kricfalusi's clips being taken off youtube. His account is knonw as Spumko, chuckchillout, and others. His short clips of cartoons like Buckaroo Bugs and Eatin' On The Cuff were removed for copyright infringment, but these were actually fair use. You see, his blog is a educational tool meant to teach cartoonists about cartoons, and that's protected under copyrihgt law. These clips encourage people to go out and buy WB DVD's, and provide nothing but free adverstsing for Warner Bros. Some of the clips taken down were even in the public domain! Gentleman, this is completely unacceptable. I'd like the clips put back up, or I will boycott your website and every product advertised on it.

you're such a rebel rouser. i love it! what a load of crap... the you tube clips are so awful, who would want to sit in front of their computer screen and watch thse little tiny clips (which are even worse in full screen mode) when they could potentially watch them on their tv?? i probably would have never even considered purchasing the looney tunes collections if it wasn't for all the clips of classic cartoons i have gotten a TASTE of on you tube. stupid rat bastard lawyers, always ruining anything good.

Hey Seriously, everyone needs to write these guys! This is alot bigger than Warner Brothers Cartoons, it's about exercising our rights. YouTube is caving to the Warner Brothers corporation even though John is not in violation of any copy right law. YouTube needs to do the right thing and take the bastards to coart. They will win if they do, but we have to put pressure on them or else they won't even give a damn to do so...

This isn't just about Warner's cartoons. I had some Terrytoons and Walter Lantz stuff up there and there is no indication that this stuff is coming to DVD anytime soon. If they are so concerned about their ownership rights why aren't they releasing this stuff to wring every dime out of it they can? Because they're fuckin' douchebags that's why. These ballbags don't even know what to do with the product they're so concerned about protecting. I don't believe that YouTube is the future. Once they start aligning themselves with major media corporations they're going to start force feeding the same shit down are throats that they do on TV and the Radio. I'm sure they'll eventually change the Terms of Use to include them having exclusive rights to all content posted there.

BTW John, I really enjoyed the last couple of Buckaroo Bugs posts. Thanks for sharing.

i just don't understand what's with all the copyrights craps in youtube.. it never represents the final product and its a heck of a promotional tool.. as John says, the clips look crappy. they will never loose costumers to youtube.. just win new ones

Damn, you nailed it here. I want to go back on my Golden collection purchases also, but I've already grabbed the first 2 and thus have a bit of stock in them. Also enjoy the commentaries - but your very right about DVNR bullshit and their withholding of rare great cartoons. Why can't they just release them as the historical top notch animation that it is, instead of trying to make it create their own history? Even the ratio director by director is skewed towards later Jones and Freleng.

Anyway, I'll hit up youtube as well. The only thing worse than a botched and mishandled "golden" collection DVD, is one that you get headaches over even trying to support. If it wasn't for the actual good work done by Warner Bros 65 years ago, they'd be in real trouble.

I agree that John is doing nothing more than promoting these classic cartoons. But still, I think Warner Bros. are technically within their rights to claim that these clips infringe copyright. I remember reading on the web about five years ago about how a comedian posted episodes of John's cartoon Weekend Pussy Hunt on his web site, and then emailed Steve Worth asking if it was okay. Steve was not pleased. Read the exchange here. I agree with Steve that he should have asked for permission first. I don't think Steve's email was "nasty", he was just being assertive. I do believe however that Emery Emery was only doing it as a service to John K's fans, not to make money. I still would love John to be able to legally post clips of classic cartoons. Here's hoping he can work it out.

John K said:"They were not low-rez versions, they were not clips. They were the actual complete episodes that I personally paid for and some guy was giving them away for free before I ever made a cent on them."

Wow, I didn't know that, thanks John. I've never actually seen Weekend Pussy Hunt myself; I'm trying to be a good Kric-tian by resisting the temptation of viewing an illegal version. I've seen screenshots of it though that take my breath away. Oh the sinful delights!

I'm certainly no copyright expert, but I know for a fact that I overspent on my credit card last month because I bought all of the Golden Collection DVDs after this very blog, and the YouTube videos John K linked to, reinvigorated my interest in classic Warner Bros cartoons.

YES. About time someone retaliated to utter stupidity of Warner pulling all these classic cartoon clips! It's blogs like this one, and all these online clips that bought back my love for classic cartoons in the first place, and because of them I've gone out and nabbed the Golden Collections, as well as the Tom & Jerry sets and the Disney Treasures. The internet is now one of the best ways to advertise stuff, and surely this is prooth!

...the only justification for it is they want us to buy their DVDs instead of watching stuff online.

The problems with that is, the Golden Collection DVDs *aren't* mass market items. They're too expensive and contain more obscure cartoons that your average viewer doesn't know or care about.

The DVDs are mostly only bought by the more hardcore/dedicated fans to begin with and these are the kind of people who *aren't* going to be deterred because they can see some of the cartoons on Youtube. These are the kind of people who actually care about animation and aren't going to simply be satisfied watching them in a 4 inch wide low-quality box on their computer screen because they want to see them at the best quality possible.

The recent ring of classic cartoon blogs (John's, Thad's and many others) only serve to add *more* people in the "hardcore fan" camp, and as we already established, those type of people are pretty much the only audience for the Golden Collections anyways.

John - Your email from YouTube says that they took off the cartoon EATIN' ON THE CUFF. That cartoon is one of the WB shorts that has entered the public domain so Warner Bros. has no legal right to ask for its removal. Just thought I'd point that out.

On my blog I have a link to all the Tex Avery cartoons on Youtube. I thought I was going to have to delete that. But, I thought I'd click it again just for old time sake. And, lo and behold, many if not all the Tex Avery cartoons are back on Youtube. I saw Billy Boy, Cellbound, Half Pint Pygmy, Lonesome Lenny, etc. I didn't check to see if any Looney Tunes were restored.

Of course, they might be back on or it might have been some sort of server reflex action showing us what used to be there or something. In either case, go check that out.

"John - Your email from YouTube says that they took off the cartoon EATIN' ON THE CUFF. That cartoon is one of the WB shorts that has entered the public domain so Warner Bros. has no legal right to ask for its removal. Just thought I'd point that out. "

I can second that.http://www.geocities.com/the_daffy_doc/pdlooney.html

John - Your email from YouTube says that they took off the cartoon EATIN' ON THE CUFF. That cartoon is one of the WB shorts that has entered the public domain so Warner Bros. has no legal right to ask for its removal. Just thought I'd point that out.Wow, even better.... totally shocking that they'd take down public domain work at the say-so of WB without question.

YouTube hasn't taken action against the Disney shorts I have in my Favorites list, like Steamboat Willie and The Skeleton Dance, but I suppose that's gonna happen soon as well. Remember it was Steamboat Willie that inspired Disney to lobby legislators for the regs that became the Sonny Bono Copyright Act.

Insult is added to injury when, as has been pointed out, many of the cartoons pulled were in the Public Domain thanks to the AAP debacle of the late 1950s.

Watch. Viacom will bat next, and have a whole shipload of videos pulled, from Fleischer Betty Boops to Daria and Beavis and Butt-Head episodes. Big Media is on a rampage, and viral video sites are in their crosshairs. There are snipers on the loose, shooting down an important part of our cultural patrimony.

Been following me around the net, Jennifer?There are several practical issues here, and they all involve money (as practical issue do).

YouTube is a giant copyright target. They're big enough to defend themselves (a.k.a. fund a defense for themselves) from a stray lawsuit here and there. However, it's much cheaper to comply with every request to remove material than it is to consider whether or not they are in danger of a lawsuit from any given request. A large corporation with a large internal legal department that is likely sending letterheaded hard copy cease and desist orders represents an especially tangible threat.

I don't actually understand what YouTube's business model is, especially in terms of allowing people to embed video in sites YouTube can't get advertising revenue from; while they may have a degree of profit in getting people to go to the main YouTube site via embedded video as advertising for YouTube, it seems iffy. Disallowing embedded video would tend to make people go directly to YouTube for the video, possibly leading to a more direct benefit to YouTube. This assumes YouTube will someday be making money from advertising, which they don't seem to be doing now. (If they jam a single frame ad at the beginning of every video, that might do it; but they haven't been doing that either.)

At any rate, YouTube is under little to no obligation to provide a home for videos to anyone. If they decide they don't want to provide the service for something or someone, they're free to not provide the service.

WB's calculus has been discussed to a greater degree here. They apparently feel they will be better off not allowing their materials to be on YouTube, whether or not we agree iwth that position. Whether or not they have a sound case for legally forcing YouTube to remove them is less clear. For whole cartoons, they'd probably have a fairly sound case. But for short enough clips, fair use could easily come into play; at the same time, the nature of the distribution might raise new issues that might not be covered by existing case law, or be covered by existing case law I'm not familiar with. YouTube is probably in a position economically to litigate that question, and WB certainly is in a proper economic position to do so. John almost certainly isn't, altho if there's a public interest group looking for a YouTube test case, he might make an appropriate guinea pig.

John K.'s hosting the clips himself might open himself to a potential lawsuit. That would be less likely to draw a cease and desist than YouTube, perhaps, but it would put him much more directly on the hook (even if he had someone else technically hosting it) in the event WB wanted to pursue the issue. Even when legally completely in the clear, there are large potential expenses involved in dealing with a large corporation bent on overstepping their legal rights; brute force will get them results they are not entitled to under the law, and even if it doesn't, it can easily ruin their opponents. The safest thing to do would be to ask the WB (or whomever based on the relevant clips) for clearance; I would think contacts made via his commentary experience would be a good place to start, as internal requests to the legal department might go over better than an external request. (P.S.: don't be snotty to the legal department or your contacts; you should push the whole "This sparks interest in your IP" aspect, but they won't want to deal with you or help you if you're petulant.) YouTube still might remove them in broad sweeping removals, but John would be free to host them himself, and might be able to get YouTube to reinstate clips based on letters of clearance (perhaps there's an internal stamp that could be put on certain YouTube accounts to mark them as having clearances?); more importantly, he should be free from a civil suit as long as he complies with the terms of the clearances.

Youtube are gonna come up against this issue big time at some point. Either be really lax about copyright, or effectively shut down; ie switch to a much tighter controlled 'legal' system maybe even where you have to pay, like what happened to napster.

There's so much copyright stuff on there it's unbelievable... that's what makes it so great! ^_^

If they get proactive about copyright they might as well just shut down the site right now... For example how many users do you think they'd loose, directly and indirectly, if they were to take down pretty much every one of the 113356(!!!) videos that come up if you search "anime" for instance!?

the serious thing of the subject is that if this is repeated again, it will mark a precedent for the use of audio-visual material that would have to be patrimony of the humanity! Finally, John used these images as material educative… what is bad? you think that the problem, maybe, could be directly with you, John? I hope that Youtube or WB recalls to mind… it is a stupidity, because they lose more! how strange is all this!

I wouldn't be surprised if the "lawyers" who email youtube (and other sites) are just office clerks hired to surf the web all day looking for "violations" of copyright. They have no idea whether the content is public domain or not.

As far as YouTube's business model, I heard they have no model. The whole goal of YouTube was to make a successful website. What better way than to host clips for free! So far it's working. People love it and are posting everything up there. Meanwhile, YouTube isn't making any money. In fact, I heard they're losing millions of dollars by the month hosting everything. The plan was/is to build up that user base and sell! Simple right? They'll be rolling in money! The same thing happened to MySpace. As soon as it caught on and became popular they opened the bidding. Unfortunately for YouTube, they're losing money hand over fist and even if they sold this "hot commoditiy" I think they'd still be in debt.

Just when you thought Warner's couldn't embarrass themselves more! It doesn't take a person with a major in business to figure out that people would much rather have a clean, fabulous copy of a short over a low res, pixelated one downloaded from the net. Or maybe that's the problem, we've figured it out and unfortunately, they still haven't. Tools!

I am, but not in California, and I am not at this time practicing in compliance or clearance; my opinion on specific legal practice on this issue in California should be discounted accordingly. A local to you attorney with a history of practice in clearances would have better and more specifically informed advice for you. The jurisdictional issues make me prefer to not do anything rising to the technical level of the practice of law here. Working as your agent might rise to that level. However, general advice (including general legal discussion, but especially the general practical advice I have for you in this message, which is based on generally observed corporate practice) does not rise to that level.

Again, I'm not sure the most effective way of approaching this is to directly contact legal if you can help it. Legal likely does not make policy, they simply enforce it. I would suspect the most applicable normal type of request similar to this would be something like documentaries or news stories using brief clips; there's a solid chance those uses may be paid for, as well (another reason you may not want an attorney doing the contacting; lawyers imply a source of funds that might be tapped). Even then, this use likely differs too much for the precise same policies to apply.

Approaching legal initially would likely require them to go to someone else in the company to make the policy decision in this case. I would expect it to be easier to convince someone else that it's a good idea and then have them approach legal as simply a way of executing their own decision. If you have contacts in WB, those people would likely have a better idea of who to contact (if they are not themselves people who can ask legal for the clearances). My guess would be PR or the home video division. A good general approach would involve emphasizing the lack of need to actually get clearance due to fair use but the efficacy of using YouTube, playing up the benefits of clips being out there on their own merits plus direct benefits such as explicit encouragement in posts to purchase official product, and subtly bringing up the negative press inherent in appearing to quash access to limited uses of short clips.

This process might very well be time consuming, especially if it involves policy decision making. The corporate form often limits who can execute such policy changes, and if those individuals wish to avoid making a decision, it can drag on for a long time. Even then, there's no guarantee a policy decision would be in your favor. I would think your best bet would be to find someone whose existing power can be seen to subsume the decision; if PR can authorize promotional campaigns or act to promote the company's product, their existing powers could encompass gaining you clearances. Similarly, if the home video department has the right to act as to promote home video releases, getting you clearances might be covered. If you can get someone with that decision making power who is behind you, you're in the best possible position.

There are all kinds of other issues that could occur here, some of which I may have thought of, but probably a lot that I haven't. WB could be willing to give clearance, but might require every request to be cleared individually (potentially delaying you in terms of time or even prohibiting certain clips), might require various concessions in or around the clips (copyright info, etc.), might want to restrict you in what you can say about WB, etc.

I could give a general opinion on the tone of any proposed letters. Stephen Worth has my contact information if you need it (I am the Mullin Ted).

Dear mr John sir, I just had two add my two cents and say that if warner made good quality dvds with featured directors i would buy them right now I/m dwloading crapy tape transfers. Why because of sites like this and because of the fact that the used to show good old cartoons on TV when I was little still. WARNER BROTHER'S I WILL BUY A BOB CLAMPETT AND TEX AVERY DVD. YOU SHOULD ALSO LET JOHN K. MAKE A CLASSIC STYLE "ADULT" WARNER'S ANIMATED FILM. TOYKO LOVES CARTOONS. TOYKO FULL OF MONEY. WHAT COOL IN JAPAN SUPER COOL IN N. AMERICA. are the big brothers listening?

Warners is awalys been this way... to many lawyers with to little to do. DC comics have had to take out movies posters that were drawn in the background of a comic panel of movies owed by Warners' and DC is owned by Warners.

I have learned so much in so little time from this blog about the cartoons and cartoonists of the golden age, all because I can instantly watch what you're talking about. That is better than any book about animation.

I think a lot of people, including me, have seen a lot of those cartoons and clips for the first time on youtube. It has definately inspired me to buy and rent the Looney Tunes DVD's that have been made.

It is also the only place I've been able to watch "Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarfs" and "Tin Pan Alley Cats", cartoons that have been banned. I would definately buy those two on DVD if I could. Coal black is simply the most animated animation I ever did see. It makes me want to walk all bouncy and stough.

Your blog has enhanced my enjoyment of the Looney Tunes and animation.

On one side, as a supporter of copyright law - I can understand why WB is so upset. It is their character - trademark and symbol and they do own the rights to Bugs and all of the WB characters. And if they don't like clips being ripped and posted then - that's that and they have every legal right to do that. Better be glad they haven't gone after you legally yet over this and all you got was a cease and desist order. And you wouldn't particularly be happy if ppl took your recent drawings of your character ideas and started posting them willy-nilly all over the Internet. And selling your recent character designs on t-shirts on Ebay. (that actually happened to me once on DeviantArt) Being someone who's in the biz - you should know a lot firsthand about studio copyright practices and laws and rules.

As for the ethical rights - I think it's absolutely super, awesome, cool how you use the "old skool" bugs to teach freely classical animation techniques. And if this where a private classroom in school then I don't think anyone would know or care too much. As far as their claim that it hurts DVD sales - that's preposterous!! DVD sales at WB decline because of public disinterest, not because of clips posted on some guy's blogpage. Have you seen the crap WB has pitched recently?! That "reinvention" of the WB characters and making them comic book like "superheroes" was the first shot into WB's own foot. it pissed off a lot of old time Bugs fans and the new kids hate it. it's marketing BS and the result of an overly bloated Marketing dept. on WB's side.

YouTube is a new service to the web and I think it's fun and great. BUT they do have a warning on all postings in their policy text that user's shouldn't post copyrighted material. Although you see it everywhere on YouTube - technically and legally speaking, user's shouldn't be posting clips from Family Guy or all those re-dubbed Animes. And unfortunately, this might be the straw that makes YouTube crack down on how user's post and what material they post. DeviantART (public art posting site) is absolutely militant about copyrighted content being posted on their site - so they save themselves from lawsuits from Disney and WB and others.

Be careful John - I would hate for this to end up in the Animation News headlines as a huge, pricey legal battle. Because frankly - WB might win.

As a side note - I have a bunch of Model sheets and storyboard copies from AKA Cartoons Inc - the Ed, Edd, and Eddy producers. From their studio Test for prospective employees.

I would love to post them and share them publicly. But out of total respect - legaly and artisticaly - for Dan Antonucci and AKA, I won't post them. And on the papers they have a legal dislaimer on every piece that it is property of Cartoon Network and AKA Cartoon Inc. and is not to be publicly posted or anything of the sort.

Just to play devil's advocate, it should be mentioned that copyright protection is really, really fragile. If they don't actively pursue random uses of their characters here and there, they will actually lose the right to protect themselves from real infringement elsewhere.

Not true. You're thinking of trademark.

It used to be true of copyright that it had to be vigorously defended, but that changed with the landmark Copyright Act of 1976. You can use, as a defense, that you saw others who were not prosecuted, but if there is any difference between your situation and the other (and ``unlikely to cause much harm'' would be such an example), the legal strategy falls apart.

I do agree wholeheartedly that it is very sad that viewers can't watch classic Bugs cartoons anymore. Not even on Cartoon Network anymore!!

What has happened to cartoons these days?! Instead of cartoon blocks after school time on FOX, like arounf 2-4pm. They have Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch crap in that slot. I for one don't think that is something kids should be watching. And the PC nutballs say Bugs Bunny is too violent - for kripes sake - showing kids Jerry Springer is 10x as bad as silly cartoon humor. I was watching Madagascar last night - and it had classic cartoon physical abuse all over and why doesn't the PC nustballs flag Madagascar too?

In order to revive cartoons and animation, networks should return the cartoon hour back to the 2-4pm weekday time slot. Saturday morning cartoons are also disapearing. What happened to Saturday morning cartoon hours?!!

It is the loss of these vital audience viewing times that helps to kill the animation industry.

I had a vid compilation of anime from you tube link on my blogpage. It was a set of random Anime clips set to some music. I picked it because I have a love for japanese animation and I wanted to show anyone who was looking how beautiful it can be by the clips. Lots of explosions and Akria and stuff.

It's gone now. I know it's not YouTube's fault. But companies like WB are extreemly sensitive to internet content these days. With the music MP3 cases and all. The scope of concern over copyrighted material on the internet isn't just a Music industry battle. It covers drawn and literary work as well.

And we all know how militant Disney is about their stuff. They sue babysitting services over them having self painted pictures of Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse on the nursery walls.

Funny thing is if they wanted to virally promote their old content to sell more of it, they would probably want a JohnK to promote it on his site and get people excited about the construction and quality and buy them. It was essentially a FREE viral campaign that was SCORING BIGTIME and WARNER BROTHERS shut it down. Its is NO WONDER this great old movie studio is being RUN INTO THE GROUND and lacking in innovation. Sheeesh...

I'm anon and don't want to take the time to register, but the way I see it if they own the rights to the shows then they get to decide where they are aired. If they don't want the free advertising by people posting the shows on YourTube then they have that right.

They own the stuff they have all the rights to it. It is black and white.

*How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

**Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?

If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.

***Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150, 000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Copyright laws are always a trouble to deal with. But we as artists must understand them and abide by them no matter what. For our own good and fellow artist's good and integrity as well. It doesn't matter if its a huge mega-coperation or Joe Blow's stick figure flash animation on his webpage.

Under right of use for Education John might have a small leg to stand on. But he isn't a registered educational faucility or an official art education institution so there. See, going to Art School does have it's advantages doesn't it? ;P

>Under right of use for Education John might have a small leg to stand on. But he isn't a registered educational faucility or an official art education institution so there. See, going to Art School does have it's advantages doesn't it? ;P

But ASIFA is a registered non profit organization and since he's doing it in conjunction with them it's fair use.

They just want to control thier product.They made it you just nicked it.Its just the way it is.You would'nt steal a ladies handbag so y would you steal a film.GO TO JAIL MOVE DIRECTLY TO JAIL.DO NOT PASS GO ,DO NOT COLLECT £200..............Only kidding you are doing them a service.

I know this is way after the fact, but the Warner Bros. takedown has extended into areas you wouldn't believe.

A little clip of the Associated Artists Productions "atomic" logo has been taken off YouTube. The animated logo of a company that hasn't existed since 1958, when they were bought out by United Artists. Why? Because it has a tangental relationship to the Warner Bros. Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies cartoons.

I will eat my hat if this bit of TV ephemera hasn't entered the public domain. Along with all the cartoons that YouTube yanked in capitulation to Warner Bros.'s legal beagles.

The AAP package, which includes all Warner cartoons from the Bosko days to 1948 (excluding "Lady, Play Your Mandolin") fell into the public domain because UA screwed up. There have been cheesy VHS (and DVD) releases of this material since the '80s.

If Warner Bros. keeps up forcing people to remove their "public domain" stuff from web sites than sue them to "Make all Warner Bros. products public domain." instead of for money on the grounds that "Warner Bros. doesn't have a clue about the different between public domain and copyrighted products."

I'm not surprised by any negative comments about WB. I worked there for 7 years and it's a frustrating place to work. Middle Management is pathetic. Employees, managers, supervisors, presidents, vice-presidents, and executives have no respect or regard for each other much less the public or fans. WB does not care about hiring people who are educated or experienced. They expect prospective employees to be underpaid, underemployed, overworked, and speak 3 languages. Interesting that they are loaded with attorneys. WB made some union-busting attempts in my department that our union quickly obviated. Even with a union, you are not protected against WB. The department I was in was like going into a melee every day. People were allowed to be abusive to each other with no accountability.

I know this is old but I just found it because once again, as I do every few years, I was looking for a copy of "Chow Hound"- I would've settled for a Youtube play even- but it doesn't seem to exist. I've been ripped off trying to buy early Popeyes or Woody Woodpeckers- the dvds will be atrocious quality (not just by lofty art standards- I mean really atrocious) or will only contain one cartoon by said character and then a lot of weird filler stuff I don't want. I figured that stuff was just becoming too obscure as I got older... And there have been so many times I've muttered "what? No gravy?" nd gotten blank stares that I just figured that was too obscure as well. I took another crack at it and found this post and now I'm really irritated.